What Is Britain - Book Report/Review Example

 What Is Britain? The American historian J. Pocock gave a lecture in 1975 as part of a series which took place in New Zealand and this was published as an article in The Journal of Modern History with the title “British History: A Plea for a New Subject”. (Pocock, 1975) In response to the lecture, three other historians submitted comments and these were published in the same volume of the same journal, appended to Pocock’s article, with the title “British History: A Plea for a New Subject: Comments.” (A. J. P. Taylor et al., 1975) The two texts are therefore related to each other, the first one being a fully argued presentation by one scholar, and the second one being a set of shorter comments on particular points raised in that presentation, by three different scholars. It is important to note at the outset that all of the participants in this ongoing debate are from different parts of the world, and each one writes from a different perspective. They refer to each other, and there appears to be a certain rivalry between them. J. Pocock was based in the United States, A. J. P. Taylor was an elderly and very famous English historian, with a long track record and writing from Oxford and London, G. Donaldson was a Scottish historian from Shetland and writing from Edinburgh, while Michael Hechter confesses that he is an “outsider” which no doubt refers to his location in Washington, and perhaps also origins in mainland Europe, with no direct personal connection to Britain. There is a preamble and a final mention of the New Zealand location for the lecture, which sets the scene and rounds it off, but in general the topic has little direct relevance to New Zealand. Pocock’s mention of “mapping the historical consciousness” is linked with the man in whose honor the lecture series takes place (Pocock, 1975, p. 621) but this is little more than a rhetorical nod to his audience, making sure that his piece has a connection with Beaglehole. The mapping analogy is more about style than substance, since the main topic is Britain and British history. Pocock starts off his lecture with a provocative mention of A.J. P. Taylor’s very famous book English History 1914-1945 (1965) and immediately takes issue with that scholar’s determination to call the Scots by the term “Scotch.” This sets the lecture up as one of opposition to a dominant and English-centred view and leads into the main argument that “there is a need for us to revive the term ‘British history’ and reinvest it with meaning.” (Pocock, 1975, p. 603) The lecture then refers to many existing history books which deal with one or other of the main cultures which make up what he calls “the Atlantic archipelago” (Pockock, 1975, p. 606). Pocock prefers this term because it reflects the diversity of the cultures that make up what people term “Great Britain” or “the British Isles”. In the “Comments” article, A.J. P. Taylor rises to the bait offered by Pocock and responds with a further example of his English centered view, repeating the quip about “the Scotch” and maintaining that the words English and British can be used synonymously and that “the difference is a triviality interesting only to nationalist cranks.” (Taylor et al. 1975, p. 622) His derogatory tone is further enhanced when he describes non-English parts of Britain as “the outposts” who make only a small contribution to the culture, “which is and always has been exclusively English” (Taylor et al. 1975, p. 622) He even goes on to insult the Americans, no doubt in calculated snipe at Pocock, with the words “American or more accurately provincial” (Taylor et al, 1975, p. 623). There is some flippancy here, and an attempt to present it all as something as a joke, since Taylor ends with a tongue in cheek plea “I hope Pocock will forgive this bit of harmless chauvinism.” (Taylor et al, 1975, p. 623). While Pocock argues for more diversity of approach, Taylor argues for his old-fashioned anglo-centric one, and he demonstrates his own blinkered attitudes with gratuitous slurs on anything outside a narrowly English perspective. Taylor makes emotional points, and takes an extreme position. It seems that his aim in this piece is not to refute arguments, since he simply ignores Pocock’s careful exposition, but instead to fan the flames of controversy and keep the debate going on a somewhat acrimonious level. In this he only succeeds in strengthening Pocock’s position, since Taylor demonstrates that he is living proof of the inadequacy of prevailing historical views about Britain. Pocock lays out his argument logically, quoting from this or that history of Scotland, (Donaldson, 1960; Daiches, 1964, Hanham, 1969) England (Bindoff, 1950; Taylor, 1965; Munz, 1971) or Ireland, (Beckett, 1966) and emphasizing “the evident fact that the pattern of ‘British history’ is one of the steadily increasing dominance of England as a political and cultural entity.” (Pocock, 1975, p. 610). The citation of all these worthy books adds credibility and seriousness to his argument, for he certainly knows his way around the subject, and it also proves his point that the history of Britain is fragmented from all these angles, and there is no single worthy approach that values them all as they relate to each other and to the whole. Pocock also cites contemporary cultural practices such as the tendency that “Scottish universities usually maintain departments of Scottish history alongside departments of history in some more general sense” (Pocock, 1975, p 614) with ensuing negative effects on the overarching discipline of history as it is practised in Scotland. Interestingly there is a footnote to this statement with the qualifying remark “A massive exception is formed by the work of Gordon Donaldson…” (Pocock, 1975, p. 614, note 15). It may be that this footnote was added later, when the journal received the “Comments” from various scholars including just this Gordon Donaldson. The comments that Donaldson makes are largely supportive of Pocock, and unlike Taylor, Donaldson makes his critical points courteously and in a spirit of collaboration rather than confrontation or insult. He points out that only two Scottish universities in Scotland have history departments which are set up in the way that Pocock describes and explains the historical reasons for this in the universities of Edinburgh and Glasgow. (Taylor et al, 1975,p. 624) Thus Donaldson corrects a minor factual error and explains his reasons. He also points out one factor that Pocock mentioned only briefly, namely the different relation that Scotland had with England due to its own well developed culture and its ability to negotiate union with England on equal terms, rather than just submit and be taken over as a conquered nation. It seems that Donaldson wants to refute the idea that England had its paradigms, while Scotland did not, and that Scottish history is therefore in some way less developed than English history. This contribution is well argued, polite, and a useful extension of Pocock’s original thesis, and it demonstrates the value of what Pocock is suggesting, namely a gathering of perspectives from more than just the dominant English one. Donaldson gives the Scottish view. The comment provided by Michael Hechter, writing from Washington, does not deal with the main argument which Pocock puts forward in favour of a new way of looking at British history. He cites the issue of expense, making the point that there are limited resources available for historical studies, and that setting up a whole new area will only detract from the established areas, and bring no benefit worth the effort and expense. This is a curious and very weak response, because it seems to be more concerned about maintaining the prestige of anglocentric approaches like that of Taylor, while suppressing any alternative suggestions from the likes of Pocock. It adds nothing to the theoretical debate, and gives the impression that Hechter is more concerned about personal gain than any higher academic ambition. In conclusion, then, it would be fair to say that both articles take the debate about English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish and mixed national and sub-national histories further. Pocock tries to generalize his theory to include discussion of Canada, Hungary and other states very briefly, but in the main he concentrates on Britain. The tone ranges from warm (Pocock and Donaldson) to neutral (Hechter) to hectoring (Taylor) and all four authors manage to convey their points clearly to a moderately educated audience. Taylor is the most entertaining, and his points are most memorable, because his invective is quite ridiculous at times, but this weakens his academic position. Pocock is earnest, and makes good points, but he reveals that he does not himself command sufficient knowledge of the detail to speak with complete authority. To be fair, he does not claim to, but only argues for more collaboration and open comparison between different branches of history. Donaldson is the most convincing because he is respectful, even handed, and clearly interested in presenting a fair picture, but he does approach the topic with a pro-Scottish bias. The interplay of all these authors’ ideas in these two authors is a good demonstration of Pocock’s argument and so it can be concluded that the theory (Pocock’s article) and the practice of history (the three responses) together make an eloquent case for a new approach to British history that no longer allows the views of the conquering English to dominate. References Beckett, J. C. 1966. The Making of Modern Ireland. London: Knopf. Bindoff, S. T. 1950. Tudor England. Middlesex: Harmondsworth. Daiches, D. 1964. The Paradox of Scottish Culture. London: Oxford University Press. Davidson, J. W. 1971. History: Art or Game? New Zealand Journal of History 5 (2), pp. 115-120. Donaldson, G. 1960. The Scottish Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, O. D., Evans, G, Rhys, I and MacDiarmid, H. 1968. Celtic Nationalism. London: Barnes and Noble. Griffith, A. 1904. The Resurrection of Hungary. Dublin: Whelan and Son. Hanham, H. J. 1969. Scottish Nationalism. London: Harvard University Press. Hartz, L. (ed). 1964. The Founding of New Societies. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Mansergh, N. 1969. The Commonwealth Experience. London: University of Toronto Press. Mathews, 1966. The Celtic Peoples and Renaissance Europe. New York and London: Sheed and Ward. McNaught, K. 1969. The Pelican History of Canada. Middlesex: Harmondsworth. Morris, J. 1973. The Age of Arthur. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Munz, P. 1971. The Purity of the Historical Method. New Zealand Journal of History 5 (1), pp. 1-17. Pocock, J. G. A. 1975. British History: A Plea for a New Subject. The Journal of Modern History 47 (4), pp. 601-621. Taylor, A. J. P. 1965. English History 1914-1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, A. J. P., Donaldson, G., Hechter, M. 1975. British History: A Plea for a New Subject: Comments. The Journal of Modern History 47 (4), pp. 622-626. Thornton, A. P. 1966. The Habit of Authority. London: Allen and Unwin. Read More